Shane Ferguson

[Not Brazil]

Hell, they even got rid of the "Football Apartheid in Ireland" forum over on OWC!

They haven't.

[DannyInvincible]

They haven't.

Ah yes, I see it now. With difficulty, mind, considering it's fallen from the top of the main forum page and become a sub-forum within a minor sub-forum, "All The Rest", at the very bottom of the main page. And protected too. For good reason, I hope.

[EalingGreen]

The FAI agreed to a "local agreement" proposed by FIFA, as geysir mentions, but alas the IFA were obstinate enough to reject it. Indeed, it makes current IFA grumbling look infantile.

Having read the CAS ruling in its entirety, it is my firm belief that FIFA was sympathetic towards the IFA in principle, but (very late in the day) decided that their Rules, as drafted, did not permit them to prevent NI-born players from representing the FAI.

My reason for thinking this is threefold. First, they had not long before had to rewrite the Rules (in an emergency, btw), in order to forestall the Qatari/Brazilian situation etc. Second, almost up until the verdict, all the "background noises", from BOTH Associations, suggested that the IFA would "lose the battle, but win the war" (as per John Delaney to RTE at Dublin Airport). Third, the offer to the IFA that they might be permitted to select ROI-born players was their attempt at "compensation" for a ruling which was unfairly working against the IFA. (Otherwise why would they make such an unprecedented offer, applicable, however, only in Ireland?)

Of course, from the comfort of Zurich, such an offer might have seemed to FIFA like "fair" compensation. That is, they likely will not have understood that it was effectively offering the IFA a "cheque which could never be cashed".

Anyhow, not only was there nothing* in it for the IFA, but acceptance of such an offer would actually have been completely contrary to the IFA's interests. For if both Associations were completely free to select players from each others territories etc, it would inevitably (and correctly, imo) prompt the question further afield as to why the island should have two national teams and two Associations in the first place.


* - Realistically, how many ROI-born players who were not good enough to play for the FAI, would, however, be both good enough and willing to play for the IFA? Quite honestly, selecting such players, even if only a handful, would only serve to damage morale amongst those NI-born players whose place they might be threatening.

[EalingGreen]

Ah, apologies. My mistake. Even more reason to question why he [Ferguson] hasn't been thrown on for the last minute or two of a competitive game since though, no?

I strongly suspect that for whatever reason, NW has not up until now (at least) considered Ferguson to merit consideration for the senior team.

Nor should anyone be misled by the fact of his having capped Ferguson in that friendly vs Italy. For iirc, it was actually arranged somewhat late in the day, for a date where the NI team was inevitably going to be obliterated by withdrawals. In fact, such was the size of appearance fee being offered by Italy, I have no doubt that it was all the IFA's doing, rather than arranged at the behest of NW.

Consequently, there were players capped there (eg Carson, Garrett, Lawrie) who have not since been considered, nor won't ever be (imo):
http://www.skysports.com/football/ma...126032,00.html

As for the suggestion that NW should just give these players a couple of minutes in a competitive game just to tie then etc, I strongly disagree, as follows:
(a ) Friendlies are one thing, but competitive games are something else - such a ruse could backfire;
(b ) Certain posters already consider NW to be devious enough, without his giving them some substance to their imagination;
(c ) Such a policy could not be concealed, from the actual players at least, thereby leading to discontent amongst players who themselves are completely committed, but see less-committed players getting preferment/special treatment;
(d ) Even if the above could be ignored, it is always open to a player to "play the system" for all it's worth i.e. U-19, U-21, B Team, Senior Friendlies etc, then withdraw last minute from a competitive game with a "groin strain" or "back injury" etc.

As for Ferguson, unless/until I hear otherwise from the player himself, then I must assume he's committed to playing for NI. For considering he'll be 20 in July, he's old enough and mature enough etc to know his own mind. Otherwise the honourable* thing to do would be to stop wasting the IFA's time and let everyone know. If nothing else, this would at least release a place in our U-21's for someone who would dearly love to have it.


* - Speaking of "honour", at least eg Paul George declared for the FAI reasonably early, unlike eg Shane Duffy or (seemingly) Adam Barton...

[Stuttgart88]

Quite honestly, selecting such players, even if only a handful, would only serve to damage morale amongst those NI-born players whose place they might be threatening.

Or English born

[Qwerty]

I saw him play against Everton and he is quite a skillful player, another midget mind you but definitely skillful and obviously has lots of potential. He could be quite a useful player for club and country.

[geysir]

Having read the CAS ruling in its entirety, it is my firm belief that FIFA was sympathetic towards the IFA in principle, but (very late in the day) decided that their Rules, as drafted, did not permit them to prevent NI-born players from representing the FAI.

If only you had read the few quotes coming from FIFA legal dept. on the matter and digested them properly. FIFA though their legal dept had stated their sympathy for the IFA publicly, that the one way situation was unfair on the IFA . And that's how our own expert Paul accurately predicted the compromise.
The rules were the rules and FIFA did not have a problem with the rules, the compromise was to address the one way nature of the effect on Irish football.

First, they had not long before had to rewrite the Rules (in an emergency, btw), in order to forestall the Qatari/Brazilian situation etc.

This is nonsense speculation.
FIFA did not rewrite the rules in 2003, they annexed a document to the rules. A mere bit of paperwork
However in 2008 FIFA spent 6 months completely overhauled how the rules were written.
A year later FIFA were not too tired to change one of the rules again, taking away the age 21 years barrier.

Second, almost up until the verdict, all the "background noises", from BOTH Associations, suggested that the IFA would "lose the battle, but win the war" (as per John Delaney to RTE at Dublin Airport)

I have stated and argued the point to perfection that you got that quote out of context and wrong. At the time I also posted a link to an interview JD (just after he arrived back from Zurich) did on Sat morn Marion Finucane show on RTE, where he was very confident that FIFA would throw out the IFA objection. None of that war/ battle nonsense that you have conjured.

the offer to the IFA that they might be permitted to select ROI-born players was their attempt at "compensation" for a ruling which was unfairly working against the IFA. (Otherwise why would they make such an unprecedented offer, applicable, however, only in Ireland

I have already referred to this. Herrera the FIFA legal head in Sept 2007 was quoted, that the eligibility rules were being correctly interpreted and applied, however this was having an unfair effect on the IFA.

[Predator]

Second, almost up until the verdict, all the "background noises", from BOTH Associations, suggested that the IFA would "lose the battle, but win the war" (as per John Delaney to RTE at Dublin Airport).

What "background noises" do you speak of? This is the RTÉ article you refer to: 'Pressure mounts on Staunton' (23rd Oct 2007)

"Meanwhile, though, the FAI have won the Darron Gibson battle with Northern Ireland - but lost the war over future qualification regarding the eligibility of players."

Note that there is no quote from Delaney. Indeed, not long after that report, RTÉ ran this story:'FIFA propose solution to eligibility row' (6th Nov 2007)

Third, the offer to the IFA that they might be permitted to select ROI-born players was their attempt at "compensation" for a ruling which was unfairly working against the IFA. (Otherwise why would they make such an unprecedented offer, applicable, however, only in Ireland?)

Why, if the so-called "background noises" were pointing to a victory for the IFA, (as the seemingly conclusive RTÉ article erroneously reports), would FIFA decide to write a letter to both associations asking them to find a compromise?

* - Speaking of "honour", at least eg Paul George declared for the FAI reasonably early, unlike eg Shane Duffy or (seemingly) Adam Barton...

You talk of honour as if you're an authority, when you are not one. In fact, you're the kind who stoops to the lows of defaming the character of both players and their families without foundation. Shane Duffy attempted to declare for the FAI aged 16/17 and actually attended a training camp with Sean McCaffrey, but Worthington singled the kid out for 'carrot caps', even putting the kid in the senior squad. Duffy declared for the FAI aged 18. That's right EIGHTEEN. You should let it go - you don't want to come across as being petty or bitter, do you?

[EalingGreen]

If only you had read the few quotes coming from FIFA legal dept. on the matter and digested them properly. FIFA though their legal dept had stated their sympathy for the IFA publicly, that the one way situation was unfair on the IFA . And that's how our own expert Paul accurately predicted the compromise.
The rules were the rules and FIFA did not have a problem with the rules, the compromise was to address the one way nature of the effect on Irish football.

I have already referred to this. Herrera the FIFA legal head in Sept 2007 was quoted, that the eligibility rules were being correctly interpreted and applied, however this was having an unfair effect on the IFA.

That is my point! FIFA accepted that the IFA would be hard-done-by if the FAI were allowed to select NI-born players, but not vice versa. Consequently both Association delegations considered that FIFA would come down on the side of the IFA. However, something/someone "brought them up short" at the last minute and they conceded that the Rules as written would not allow them to favour the IFA.

(Which was why during the whole process, I consistently argued, both here and elsewhere, that it could go either way. Not that, despite several reminders, you have had the integrity to acknowledge that, btw, preferring instead to misrepresent my position by alleging that I had always argued that the IFA would win etc.)

This is nonsense speculation.

Why? Because you say so?

FIFA did not rewrite the rules in 2003, they annexed a document to the rules. A mere bit of paperwork
However in 2008 FIFA spent 6 months completely overhauled how the rules were written.

I am not basing my argument on any amendment to the Rules in 2003 etc.

It was some years later (can't be arsed to dig out the exact docs), that FIFA suddenly realised that Qatar and Cape Verde were going to grant some Brazilians plying their trade in Europe a Passport etc, in such a way as would permit them to circumvent the existing (2003?) Rules. Consequently, FIFA issued an emergency diktat preventing this, later incorporated formally in their Articles.

A year later FIFA were not too tired to change one of the rules again, taking away the age 21 years barrier.

That was only because the change was (entirely unexpectedly) forced upon them by a majority vote from the Floor by the Associations at FIFA's Annual Convention in 2009. (That is, a number of African Associations realised they could benefit from being able to select from their diasporas in Europe who had passed 21, but not actually gained a senior competitive cap, and lobbied the other non-European Associations. From what I gather, Blatter and the FIFA Executive had not known about it in advance).

I have stated and argued the point to perfection that you got that quote out of context and wrong.

Wow, "to perfection"! I must say, you wear your modesty very lightly...

At the time I also posted a link to an interview JD (just after he arrived back from Zurich) did on Sat morn Marion Finucane show on RTE, where he was very confident that FIFA would throw out the IFA objection. None of that war/ battle nonsense that you have conjured.

On the Saturday, eh? Delaney flew back early from Zurich in order to attend to overriding businesss at home i.e. the sacking of Stan Staunton the following day. And although I could be wrong, I seem to recall that his flight back was at the beginning of the week (Monday?).
Therefore with the apparent "u-turn" by FIFA coming very soon after his return to Dublin, it is conceivable that he got wind of it in time for Ms. Finucane.

So how about this for a deal: If you look out a transcript/reference to the Finucane show, I'll try to dig out same for the interview Delaney gave to RTE "on the hoof" at Dublin Airport.

[geysir]

On the Saturday, eh? Delaney flew back early from Zurich in order to attend to overriding businesss at home i.e. the sacking of Stan Staunton the following day. And although I could be wrong, I seem to recall that his flight back was at the beginning of the week (Monday?).
Therefore with the apparent "u-turn" by FIFA coming very soon after his return to Dublin, it is conceivable that he got wind of it in time for Ms. Finucane.

So how about this for a deal: If you look out a transcript/reference to the Finucane show, I'll try to dig out same for the interview Delaney gave to RTE "on the hoof" at Dublin Airport.

Delaney did not give an interview on the hoof to RTE at the airport. And it is simply astounding that you did not listen to the linked interview I provided at that time.
scroll to 26-10-2007
Your contention that Delaney said "we won the battle but lost the war" is as baseless now as it was years ago when you first manufactured it.
You simply refuse to grow up, cop on and move on.
You were a fraud then and still a fraud now

[EalingGreen]

What "background noises" do you speak of? This is the RTÉ article you refer to: 'Pressure mounts on Staunton' (23rd Oct 2007)

"Meanwhile, though, the FAI have won the Darron Gibson battle with Northern Ireland - but lost the war over future qualification regarding the eligibility of players."

Note that there is no quote from Delaney.

Thanks, but that is NOT the source to which I was referring. However, I consider it actually further substantiates my recollection, as follows.
For that article was published on a Tuesday i.e. apparently the day after Delaney's return. Iirc, Delaney was "doorstepped" by an RTE Reporter when he touched down in Dublin airport and, although both Associations were pledged to confidentiality by FIFA until the decision was formally announced, he let slip the "battle won, war lost" quotation, which the reporter quoted verbatim.
Of course, by the time RTE was preparing its sports news the following day, the Staunton story far superceded the Gibson story in i9mportance. therefore the article you cited led with Stan, with the Gibson story being appended almost as an afterthought.
In which case, have you ever wondered where RTE actually got the Gibson story? For in the entire article on Staunton, there is only one other individual specifically alluded to, a certain "John Delaney".
Or do you imagine RTE simply made it all up themselves?

Indeed, not long after that report, RTÉ ran this story:'FIFA propose solution to eligibility row' (6th Nov 2007)

Again, iirc, FIFA suddenly came out and informed (of their change of thinking) in favour of the FAI very soon after Delaney's "Battle won, War lost" quotation to RTE. Therefore 6 Nov allowed more than enough time for the Media to have updated their reporting.

Why, if the so-called "background noises" were pointing to a victory for the IFA, (as the seemingly conclusive RTÉ article erroneously reports), would FIFA decide to write a letter to both associations asking them to find a compromise?

Quite simple, really. Having heard the submissions of both Associations, I believe FIFA were minded to come down in favour of the IFA, since they recognised that the one-way nature of the FAI's request was "unfair" on the IFA (as even Geysir now admits).
However, when something/someone persuaded FIFA that their rules as they stood would not permit them to disallow the FAI from selecting NI-born players, rather than dismantle the offending rules and replace them with something new, they took the easier* route of offering the suggested compromise to the IFA (i.e. as a form of "compensation").

* - I don't think it coincidence that FIFA had had to revise the Rules in a hurry not long previously in order to confound the Qatari/Brazilian situation, nor that the "compromise" specifically declared that it would only apply to the two Associations i.e. FIFA would brook no attempt by others to create a precedent.

You talk of honour as if you're an authority, when you are not one. In fact, you're the kind who stoops to the lows of defaming the character of both players and their families without foundation. Shane Duffy attempted to declare for the FAI aged 16/17 and actually attended a training camp with Sean McCaffrey, but Worthington singled the kid out for 'carrot caps', even putting the kid in the senior squad. Duffy declared for the FAI aged 18. That's right EIGHTEEN. You should let it go - you don't want to come across as being petty or bitter, do you?

Nowhere have I claimed to be an "authority" on honour etc, merely to have an opinion.
Nor have my comments on Duffy been "without foundation". In fact, if you care to check, you'll see that when SD originally declared that he was opting for ROI, I actually wished him well on OWC. That was because I was taking his father Brian ("duffs") at face value when he posted on the site. That is, Brian said that as a Donegal man, he had always wanted Shane to play for ROI, even driving him down to Dublin for an FAI trial etc, but he realised that Shane only went along with the trial to please his Da etc. Indeed Brian went on to say specifically how much Shane enjoyed playing for NI and how well Worthington and Beaglehole were treating him etc.

However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI. Indeed in one interview (Derry Journal?), Shane himself actually said that "as a Catholic" [sic], it was only "natural" he would want to "play for his country" etc.

In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*. And I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment. In fact, if you really insist (and I can be arsed), I can look out the exact quotations for you, but so flatly contradictory are they, that I think you'll find them embarrassing.

Anyhow, that's my reading of the situation, I think Duffy and his Da's conduct in this affair was shabby and dishonourable and I am quite prepared to back that opinion up to anyone who cares to question it.

* - Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended. There was also an account on OWC by a fan who was sitting alongside "duffs" on the flight back to NI after one of Shane's NI games. During the flight, duffs was more than effusive in his praise for the IFA/NI/NW/SB etc.

You should let it go - you don't want to come across as being petty or bitter, do you?

Actually, you are the one who keeps bringing up your fellow Derryman in detail.
On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw). In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.

So on the basis that you should let it go, what are your views on Shane Ferguson, since he is the subject of this thread, after all? Considering he's almost 20, has already gained a senior NI cap plus several U-21 caps (inc currently) and is making sufficient progress on Tyneside surely to have come to the attention of the FAI etc, if he is privately* harbouring a preference to play for ROI, do you not think it's time he came out and said it?

Or would it be OK in your book for him to go on benefiting from representing the IFA for another while, before revealing his hand?

* - I have no idea whether he is or not, so he'll continue to get the benefit of the doubt from me; however, several people here (and on ybig) are claiming that his preference is decidedly for ROI, so it's a fit topic of discussion (imo).

[gastric]

Drivel, drivel and more drivel! We really care what John Delaney said and to who! You are part of the problem of NI, EG. Someone living in the past and not accepting the present realities. CAS IS HISTORY, Barton is history to NI and hopefully Ferguson too. How about you constructing a blueprint and present it to the IFA that nurtures and encourages players to play for NI, rather bringing up the past and dwelling on history. With the amount of energy you seem to have, this might be a hell of a lot more worthwhile than boring the pants off people who really don't care or can be bothered to continuallly read your drivel.

[SwanVsDalton]

He realised that Shane only went along with the trial to please his Da etc. Indeed Brian went on to say specifically how much Shane enjoyed playing for NI and how well Worthington and Beaglehole were treating him etc.

However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI.

In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*.

Where did Shane/Brian say he didn't want to play for the ROI? His happiness at the setup and experience hardly contradicts a desire to play for ROI one day. Unless you're assuming his happiness meant he was suddenly a die-harp Kop-ite down at Windsor Park?

I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment.

I believe this is the problem Predator has. Me too actually. 18 is hardly the last possible moment. And if it was, it was due to Worthington throwing out potential (in Predator's apt phrasing) 'carrot caps' to tie him.

Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended.

Phonecall to his club manager, wowzers. Duffy must've positively teary eyed from all that love and care...

In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. Is it simply because he used the dreaded 'C' word in a throwaway quote? Personally I don't think it makes a difference – he could've said nationalist, republican, altar boy or bog ball playing border monkey for all it matters. But focusing on it like you have in the quote above appears to imply blatant sectarianism on Duffy's part - it's an implication I would greatly resent.

[Predator]

In which case, have you ever wondered where RTE actually got the Gibson story? For in the entire article on Staunton, there is only one other individual specifically alluded to, a certain "John Delaney".
Or do you imagine RTE simply made it all up themselves?

I imagine that it's more a case of poor journalism, in the sense that RTÉ carelessly reported something as fact, despite not having the facts of the matter. It's equally as plausible if not more so than your contention.

Nor have my comments on Duffy been "without foundation".

Your comments both on here and on OWC's forum are downright ridiculous and resolutely without foundation, despite your protestations and attempts to justify them. You have cast aspersions on the kid's upbringing and family, suggesting that his 'genetic inheritance' is in some way suspect.

However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI. Indeed in one interview (Derry Journal?), Shane himself actually said that "as a Catholic" [sic], it was only "natural" he would want to "play for his country" etc.

You're at it again. You misrepresent what was said in order to denigrate the character of Shane Duffy and of his family and shame on you for doing so. In the Irish Times interview with Paul Rowan, Duffy said that everyone knew that he was a Catholic and wanted to play for Ireland - that's it. And everyone did know that he was a Catholic who wanted to play for Ireland - like many kids from a similar background, he would bow his head during GSTQ (a harsh reality) and had shown indications that he'd like to play for the FAI (hence Worthington's 'fast-track' gamble). It was a completely harmless thing to say, but it's blown outrageously out of proportion by NI fans such as yourself who seek any reason to deride those who might not want to play for the IFA. It's easier for you to put the blame on a child than it is to look at the reasons why a player wants to change. Like I said, absolutely ridiculous.

In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*. And I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment.

No, Shane Duffy made it clear on several occasions that he wanted to switch - Nigel Worthingon and Beaglehole busted their asses trying to persuade him to stay, supposedly laying a guilt trip on the kid and getting David Moyes involved in their favour (his ma's from Coleraine you know...). You present Duffy as a devious mercenary in the hue of Adam Barton, but it's not true in the slightest bit.

In fact, if you really insist (and I can be arsed), I can look out the exact quotations for you, but so flatly contradictory are they, that I think you'll find them embarrassing.

Do what you wish. I don't care if you dig out these quotes, they matter little. Shane Duffy has declared for the FAI because of the reasons he gave in his interviews. Duffy was able to have enjoyed his time with NI and his relationships with his coaches at the IFA and also to have held the ambition of representing Ireland.

Anyhow, that's my reading of the situation, I think Duffy and his Da's conduct in this affair was shabby and dishonourable and I am quite prepared to back that opinion up to anyone who cares to question it.

Your opinion is based on media and forum scraps and some of your musings on the character of Shane Duffy and his family are unwelcome.

* - Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended. There was also an account on OWC by a fan who was sitting alongside "duffs" on the flight back to NI after one of Shane's NI games. During the flight, duffs was more than effusive in his praise for the IFA/NI/NW/SB etc.

So what?

Actually, you are the one who keeps bringing up your fellow Derryman in detail.

You brought him up in the context of "honour" and I challenged your implication.

On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw). In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.

Here you go again. You present Duffy and his family as sinister, scheming individuals. The only 'religious overtones' in this scenario are the ones constructed by you and your cronies over on OWC. Shameful stuff.

So on the basis that you should let it go...

HA!

...what are your views on Shane Ferguson, since he is the subject of this thread, after all? Considering he's almost 20, has already gained a senior NI cap plus several U-21 caps (inc currently) and is making sufficient progress on Tyneside surely to have come to the attention of the FAI etc, if he is privately* harbouring a preference to play for ROI, do you not think it's time he came out and said it?

Or would it be OK in your book for him to go on benefiting from representing the IFA for another while, before revealing his hand?

I've given my view on Shane Ferguson. Shane Ferguson is a dual national and is completely within his rights to play for the FAI despite having a senior cap for the IFA. The IFA will and probably already have benefitted from the rules which allow this and you do not protest when this happens. I am content that the choice is there.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The media coverage suggests that quite a lot of people there do care, does it not?

Really?? I'm sure people in the North talk of nothing else....

The FIFA rules/ CAS criteria, straightforward as they are, are not the only factors which might determine whether FAI pick players from NI, particularly those who've already played for the full NI team.

So do please enlighten what other factors are involved??
(Actually, please don't!)
And as to why they shouldn't use that criteria.
Despite EG's reservations, until they're capped in a competitive game....they're all up for grabs. If they're willing, which at least half probably won't be.
Get over it.

[DannyInvincible]

First, they had not long before had to rewrite the Rules (in an emergency, btw), in order to forestall the Qatari/Brazilian situation etc.

You appear to make it seem as if FIFA, in a mad rush to deal with the Qatari passports issue, made a botched job of amending a set of unsatisfactory rules and unwittingly created a problem elsewhere; the beast that is the Irish eligibility issue to be precise. However, long before the rules were in their current state have northern-born Irish nationals been legitimately able to represent the FAI, and I'm not referring to Alan Kernaghan. Neither the 2004 rule changes or the most-recent rule changes have created or worsened this situation. FIFA have had plenty of time to amend their rules to suit the IFA's agenda since 2007 - when the IFA started grumbling - but, of course, they haven't.

Third, the offer to the IFA that they might be permitted to select ROI-born players was their attempt at "compensation" for a ruling which was unfairly working against the IFA. (Otherwise why would they make such an unprecedented offer, applicable, however, only in Ireland?)

If the situation was so problematic to FIFA's constitution, they would have amended the rules rather than offered a compromise for the purpose of appeasing IFA misgivings and putting an end to accusations of "poaching". The nature of the compromise offered - no clamping down on player movement between the IFA and FAI - also implied that preventing northern-born Irish nationals from representing Ireland would have been considered an unsuitable "solution".

Indeed, in a letter dated the 28th of December, 2007, FIFA wrote to both the FAI and the IFA outlining the following:

"[A]s well as having thoroughly considered the existing applicable provisions of the regulations of FIFA, the FlFA Executive Committee was of the opinion that the current regulatory framework is sufficient to properly cover also the situation at hand. As a consequence, it does not appear to be appropriate to make any changes to the existing regulations, in particular not to art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FlFA Statutes. The Executive Committee therefore concluded to adhere to the status quo."

[DannyInvincible]

FIFA accepted that the IFA would be hard-done-by if the FAI were allowed to select NI-born players, but not vice versa.

That's because FIFA never offered an opinion on the "fairness" of a situation which would prevent Irish nationals with a right to citizenship through birth or heritage from representing their nation. In siding with the FAI during the Kearns case, possibly they even agreed or had no issue with the FAI's submission that:

"To deny Mr Kearns' entitlement to play for the FAI would constitute an infringement of his personality rights within the meaning of Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code."

Or, in other words, that it would be in some way unfair to infringe upon his right to play for Ireland.

I am not basing my argument on any amendment to the Rules in 2003 etc.

It was some years later (can't be arsed to dig out the exact docs), that FIFA suddenly realised that Qatar and Cape Verde were going to grant some Brazilians plying their trade in Europe a Passport etc, in such a way as would permit them to circumvent the existing (2003?) Rules. Consequently, FIFA issued an emergency diktat preventing this, later incorporated formally in their Articles.

Let me dig that up for you. The rules were amended in 2004 and the Qatari issue did not arise "some years later". It also arose in 2004.

From the Kearns judgment:

"Between 2004 and 2009, the eligibility to play for association teams was governed by one Article (Article 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the 2004 Statutes)....

In its Circular Letter No. 901, dated 19 March 2004, the FIFA explained to its member associations that the above provision appeared not to be operating satisfactorily as some players and associations tried to exploit to their advantage the apparent latitude of its first paragraph. In particular it was reported that a number of Brazilian players intended to assume the Qatari nationality in order to be eligible to play for the Qatari association....

On 1 July 2005, the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) came into force."

Or:

"To sum up, the following is the chronological order of the amendments to the regulations covering the eligibility of the players for international matches, to be deployed in aid of the historical interpretation of the current rules:

• In the beginning of 2004, Article 15 of the then-applicable 2004 Application Regulations was the only provision dealing with the matter of eligibility of players to be selected for representative teams of member associations. According to this provision, eligibility was dependent on the legal nationality of the player.

• On 19 March 2004, the above Article 15 was amended by the FIFA Circular Letter No. 901, which governed the situation of players acquiring a new nationality.

• On 1 July 2005, the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) came into force and their Annexe 2 completed the then-applicable Article 15 with regard to players with multiple eligibilities because of their 'shared nationality'.

It appears that all the above amendments were incorporated in Articles 15 to 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.

The exchange of letters between FIFA, the IFA and/or the FAI happened in 2007, i.e. long after the last amendment to the original Article 15."

[DannyInvincible]

Thanks, but that is NOT the source to which I was referring. However, I consider it actually further substantiates my recollection, as follows.
For that article was published on a Tuesday i.e. apparently the day after Delaney's return. Iirc, Delaney was "doorstepped" by an RTE Reporter when he touched down in Dublin airport and, although both Associations were pledged to confidentiality by FIFA until the decision was formally announced, he let slip the "battle won, war lost" quotation, which the reporter quoted verbatim.

"Until a decision was formally announced" or "until a decision was actually made", you mean? I remember something like this in the news at the time and have a feeling you provided evidence of Delaney saying something off-hand about winning the battle over Gibson but losing the general eligibility war before, so I'm prepared to believe he did make such a rash statement after stepping off a flight in Dublin airport. I don't know why you make such a big deal of it though. What difference does it make? Delaney's opinions or misguided perceptions have no legal weight or standing here, nor do they indicate with any clarity what was going on at FIFA. FIFA had clearly not yet come to a final decision and whoever Delaney dealt with might not even have been fully aware of the facts and issues in question. Even Delaney might well have been as confused about that matter as anyone else. He might well have assumed that FIFA's proposal was something more than a mere recommendation with no regulatory grounding in order to quell IFA discontent. That's why he has a legal team to deal with such complex matters on his behalf.

On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw).

... Whilst also very publicly trying to exploit it for all its worth and tie it in with the general issue of "FAI poaching" of northern-born Irish nationals with no family link to the Irish state, as it were, in order to help launch a crusade of outrage that would end up in embarrassment in Switzerland.

If, say, Shane Ferguson was to declare for us tomorrow, would you accept his right both in principle and by the rules to do so?

[Not Brazil]

As for us and them, according to CAS hearing, the FAI were willing to reach a compromise with the IFA on the eligibility of playing assets. The 2 associations were given permission by FIFA to workout the terms of the cooperation similar to one the 4 UK associations have. The agenda of such an agreement was left up to the 2 associations. As we now know, the IFA refused all cooperation, preferring to argue that the existing rules supported their case.

Eligibility for British Citizens is dealt with under Article 16.

In line with that, the FIFA Legal Committee invited the FAI voluntarily to confine itself to selecting for its association teams Northern Irish players who meet one of the following requirements: a) the player was born in the Republic of Ireland, b) his biological mother or father was born in the Republic of Ireland, c) his grandmother or grandfather was born in the Republic of Ireland, or d) he has lived continuously, for at least two years, in the Republic of Ireland.

This was conveyed to the FAI by letter dated 7th March 2007.

In its letter, FIFA emphasised the fact that the above proposal was only a recommendation, not based on regulatory considerations but on selfimposed restrictions, which “would not only be appropriate to ensure that the players joining [FAI’s] association teams are actually linked, in a closer manner with the Republic of Ireland, but that this would put an end to all accusations of ‘poaching’ of players raised by the [IFA]”.

On the 5th November 2007, FIFA informed the IFA, in writing, that the FAI rejected this proposal.

A second suggestion was then made by FIFA - every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA], under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to player’s eligibility for a specific Association team are fulfilled”.

This was rejected by the IFA on the 8th November 2007. It was subsequently accepted by the FAI on 20th November 2007.

What is quite remarkable is that the IFA were incapable of taking the hint ie. for their case to be won, they needed to have rules changed.

Right up to the Kearns ruling, the IFA argued on the basis that FIFA rules should be upheld.

At utter embarrassment - and a costly one at that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Maybe, though not if you believe certain of your, er, compatriots.